5

The following was the old political map of Pakistan:

enter image description here

Yesterday, Pakistani PM Imran Khan declared a new political map of Pakistan.

enter image description here

I see some major changes:

  1. FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) is merged with KP (Khyber Pakhtunkwa)
  2. Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir is united and renamed as IIOJ&K (Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir)
  3. Sir Creek, Junagarh, Manavadar (parts of the Indian state of Gujrat) is included
  4. The North-Eastern side of the border is undefined

Has Imran Khan, or the Pakistan government issued any statements outlining what this new political map is supposed to signify or achieve?

2
  • 2
    They would be declaring claims on territory they do not hold. Only the future can tell if this is an empty threat or a prelude to war. The status change for the tribal areas may be more relevant. – o.m. Aug 5 '20 at 17:35
  • 1
    The first change is discussed on the "FATA" Wikipedia page. The National Assembly voted in support of a constitutional amendment about this back in 2018. The footnotes there link to some press articles. – Brian Z Aug 5 '20 at 17:57
-3

See this article in the Hindustan Times. The article has a noticeable pro-India bias, but seems to cover the material factually.

In brief, it seems that this new map is a power-play on the part of Pakistan's Prime Minister, Imran Khan. He is leveraging his close relationship with China, and the current border tensions between China and India, to expand political control into contested territories. Assumedly the hope is that India will back down in the face of a two-front threat; it's one thing to contest the comparatively small border between India and China, but quite another to expand that to the contested territories, much less the entire border of Pakistan. India could 'reasonably' be expected to focus more on the established India-China border than on territories that have historically been disputed, though given the emotional tenor of India-Pakistan relations, I doubt that will be the case.

This also shows intentions to end the Kashmir separatist movement, which would set up the region as an independent state.

Note that Pakistan is taking a page from China's playbook, here. This kind of 'cartography conquest' — taking over an area by implication merely by changing lines on maps — is precisely how China began exerting its territorial rights to the South China Sea. If Pakistan follows that model, we can expect them to begin establishing military bases in strategic regions of Kashmir to defend against Indian incursions on 'Pakistani' territory; efforts at establishing political dominance won't begin until after the area is secured.

The FATA merger was approved by normal political means back in 2018, but that does indicate that Pakistan is moving to absorb administrative territories into its main sovereign body.

7
  • 4
    If Pakistan follows that model, we can expect them to begin establishing military bases in strategic regions of Kashmir to defend against Indian incursions on 'Pakistani' territory; --- This is irrelevant as Pakistan already has heavy military presence in their side of Kashmir. LOC is one of the most militarized regions on earth, even more, militarized than Korean DMZ. – user366312 Aug 5 '20 at 18:48
  • @user366312: Yes, but we can expect them to push those to cover the new area they've mapped out for themselves. – Ted Wrigley Aug 5 '20 at 19:24
  • 2
    I'm not seeing it. Pakistan has always claimed the entire historic state of Jammu and Kashmir; merging Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, and the Indian-controlled areas into a single province doesn't change that. And your answer doesn't explain the merger of FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkwa. – Mark Aug 6 '20 at 1:12
  • 1
    And one has to consider that this map might not have intended to be 'factual' or 'reasonable', but was merely generated to be 'provocative'. --- opinion!! – user366312 Aug 6 '20 at 21:17
  • 1
    Pakistan and India had a long-standing pact to make any decisions about Jammu and Kashmir bilaterally; --- not true after India abolished the Article-370. – user366312 Aug 6 '20 at 21:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .